Is this really an interesting finding? Even with USAID as it was previously, you could always make an argument that not having even more funding or aid in the world is “killing” thousands.
"What are the consequences of recent, controversial changes in policy?" does not become an irrelevant question simply because you can also think of hypothetical policies.
I'm not from US, so from outside it looks like US changed priorities and are less concerned about what happens in other countries, which is understandable. Whether it is good policy long term or not is another question, but clearly it was popular choice.
“You could always make an argument” and people did. And I would say this isn’t a surprising finding but it is important. Assessing direct impact almost always is because it makes realities more plain.
Every dollar you spend on a Playstation, or Labubus, or a vacation instead of mosquito nets in Burundi is literally killing people. It's likely a true statement, but one wonders what to do with it.
